Well, a lot of the discussion was about the– the issue of children, how children are impacted by this. This is so relatively new that there is not a conclusive evidence to suggest that children who grow up with two moms or two dads fare as well as children who grow up with a mom and a dad.

Perkins is trying to flip the burden of proof. Rather than his side having to prove harm to children, with some sweet honeyed words, he is asking gays to prove that their marriages are as good as straight marriages. Sorry Slick Tony, that’s bullshit. Your side wants to deprive people of some rights so you should really give us a good reason. The burden of proof is on his side, not the pro-equality side.

Now, we do have an abundance of evidence over the last forty years from the social sciences that show us that public policy that has devalued marriage through law such as no-fault divorce has truly impacted children and that impacted the institution of marriage. And the judge, in his ruling, actually over– just ignored all of that and said that there is no evidence that any of the policy that’s been adopted on no-fault divorce and other liberal-leaning policies have impacted marriage. And I think anybody with– with a half-a-brain can see that the policies that have been adopted in the last forty years have impacted marriage. And a– and as a result have impacted the well being of children.

His argument is that no-fault divorce devalues marriage which harms children. Sounds good, but how is this even related to gay marriage? Sure gay marriage changes the institution of marriage, by increasing its frequency. But in order for this argument to be logically sound, he will need to prove that gay marriage devalues marriage, which he never does, and couldn’t do in court.